CXL Pricing-Is Monte Cristo serious?

[His Divine Hand 244]

Originally posted by: Attila464

[

You assume too much. City builders do not appeal to a very large audience, in fact a majority of city builders are over 20. What does this have to do with anything? Well once you get over 20 or in that region you are one of 2 things.

1. In college and can barely afford the text books. Or you are rich, but thats not too many.

2. Are older then that have a family, kids, and really don't want to sacrifice your kids college for a game.quote>

Actually, no, I don't.  Perhaps MC does, but we will see.  Tbh, I was originally just going to post "Newsflash:  Monte Cristo to release City Builder MMO; cheap skates and pirates whine" but figured that would express too low of an opinion of some. . .  but then again if the shoe fits. . .

And now for the famed MMO. So...  I can talk with people in a chat room, play in a region with people, go to other peoples cities.... and .... and well you can do stuff too. Thats what I've seen so far, and thats a pitiful attempt at a MMO. An MMO is all about interaction between other players on a large scale, and frankly its a strech to even call CXL an MMO. The game is not innovative at all, a while ago EA tried a game like this as a possible continuation of simcity 2k (not really sure about specific year and what-not) and it really bombed to put it lightly. So CXL is not the first game to try this so IMO not really anything new.quote>

I believe you are thinking of SC2000 Network Edition.  Of course, it was not anything like an MMO of now, so a very silly comparison.  Now, is Cities XL a good MMO is an excellent question.  I personally don't think it goes far enough to really be a success, but then again, only time will tell.  

So in conclusion we do not adapt to the market, the market adapts to us, especially in this case because in many places we CAN'T adapt to MC's current business model just because it really is too expensive. And this probably is true for their current target audience, so if you can afford it great for you, but that doesn't mean that everyone else can and this is our problem. We have done all we can to help MC out of the whole they've dug, go look on their forums, its flooded with complaints, and you tell us this is our pproblem?quote>

Ah, the old "customer is ALWAYS right" schtick.  And proving my gut instinct was correct as well!  Lets be honest, much like every vocal "majority", you and the rest of the vocal rabble rousers probably aren't even close to representing the majority opinion.  I can guarantee you that if I bothered taking the time to look through the Sim City 5 CU wish list threads I could easily fill a few pages with quotes from people on this forum who wanted a multiplayer Sim City.  This game will rise and fall irregardless of MC's ignoring the whining of the vocal minority.  

So Yes, this is YOUR problem, not MC's.  YOU (and this is a collective YOU, not just you that I quoted) boasted your expectations and ignored the fact that what you wanted from a game may not be possible, profitable, or even reconcilable with the majority of other player's opinions on the matter.  You know, there was a good Yahtzee Croshaw quote about fans I've been feeling was applicable to all of this Cities XL jazz, but I'll just let it sit for now.  I'm sure no one will make it seem even more true. . . 

Originally posted by: dedgren

@His Divine Hand: NEWS FLASH: MONTE CRISTO IS RELEASING A CITY BUILDING MMO GAME, NOT A SINGLE PLAYER SC4 CLONE!!!!

@Jerome Gastaldi, CEO of Monte Cristo: We're going for the Sim City 4 spot.

Now, who do you think is right here and who is wrong? The ST member with the same access to inside info about CXL as you and me (i.e.: close to none) or the chief executive officer of the company that is making the game?quote>

You know, if it walks like a city building MMO, and talks like a city building MMO, it probably is a city building MMO.  Okay, how about this:

NEWS FLASH: Businessman says pleasing things to sell project!  Also, the world is still round!  Video at eleven.

Monte Cristo sowed the wind about three years ago promising everything under the sun to SC4 fans in an effort to get them over to the Cities Unlimited website and interested in the project. It is now reaping the whirlwind based on the perception by those same SC4 fans that there was a bargain struck then that is now being reneged on. Whether, as some have said, MC's conduct was part of a purposeful and intentional plan or whether it happened as a result of an evolving marketing strategy makes no difference at this point. It only remains to be seen whether what they say in Hollywood is true: that there is no such thing as "bad" publicity.

David

quote>

Eh, people foolishly got their expectations up.  While that Yahtzee Croshaw quote I was think of could fit quite well here, I'm not going to get that snarky here.  The problems is that fans always have slightly unrealistic expectations of what they will get.  Monte Cristo probably tried to figure out a way to give people the game they wanted, but let's be honest; they are too small of a company and most posters wanted a wish list of things that never were possible with current technology.  As I said earlier, I could fill pages with quotes just from Simtrop who voiced the desire for multi-player city builder,  that doesn't include non-grid, 3d graphics, and with the ability to focus on a complex mass-transit/road customization/non-repetitive buildings/controlling building type/more zone types/power systems/sewer systems/ and whether your sims could wear white after Labour Day.  MC was doomed to fail 90% of the requests, but bless their hearts for actually taking the time to listen.

 While I hate to play the Jan Ype for Cities XL, especially since I don't have any intentions of getting this game, I really hate badly thought out arguments, fanboy whining, and thinly veiled special interests clogging these forums.  Too few people are making too few good points around here. 

 

[YannickSHE 0]

Originally posted by: His Divine Hand

Amazing, a thread where the majority of people miss the point! I'm shocked, shocked I say!

Look, the big MC isn't releasing a single player city builder. They decided to make an MMO city builder. Continued whining about price, lack of single player features or that the sky is blue are pointless at this point. Just makes you look silly to those not caught up in this little circle jerk of complaining that a business decided your quaint ideas of what would be cool do not make a good investment.

MC is going for something a bit innovative at this point, and if this scares you "hard"core city builders out there, then don't worry, your SC4 safety blanket will still be there for you (well, at least until hardware and OS changes eventually progress beyond being able to play SC4. . .). Will this gamble work for MC? Hard to say, certainly armchair quaterbacking about how this game will bomb or be the next messiah is a bit pointless for now. If a city builder MMO game is not your thing, then hey, just say it was nice while it lasted and move on. Acting like you were BETRAYED!! (oh, the horror!!) just makes you all look like a silly drama queen.

So, in closing, don't act like Cities XL is the same as SCS, 'cause it's not. Cities XL is a sequel/successor to City Life, not SC4. It could not have just been an 'improved' SC4 clone as some would like (partly since I'm sure EA has plenty of sfuff copyrighted). You disagree with trying to make a city builder MMO, fine, thats cool, I even partly agree with you. You think the game is too expensive and don't see why you should have to pay extra for features. . . well unfortunately for you the point apparently passed you in the Jurassic age, but don't worry, I'll give it to you. . .

NEWS FLASH: MONTE CRISTO IS RELEASING A CITY BUILDING MMO GAME, NOT A SINGLE PLAYER SC4 CLONE!!!!

So have fun!quote>

Can't say it better than that.

[geek12 0]

This whole discussion has just gotten ridiculous.

[Attila464 2]

You have succeded in completly ignoring the issue of price.

So first of all since your response was aimmed in my general direction, I am a "cheap skate" for wanting to send my kids to college and hoping to retire by 60?

I also could fill hundreds of pages of what people wanted in SC5 and how this game does have most of those, but guess what? If you want to have many of those you have to pay an extra 60 dollars a year on top of the 40 dollars you already spent on the game and there is the problem, and the problem you have yet to address.

Is it possible for MC to make a game the way people want? Sure raise the price 10-20 dollars and the profit you gain from extra customers will far outweigh what they thought they could have gained via subscription.

I would suggest checking ign, gamespot, sc4 devotion, tout simcity (French),MC's own forums even if you still doubt that this really only a small group of people.

[Mr_Maison 2,426]

@His Divine Hand....So are you one of those who call people who put trust into a company who invites them over to discuss the development of a game in an un-nurished genre a bunch of fools? You sound like one of those who call the victim stupid. I was excited when MC invited us 2 years ago and I do not feel ashamed about that. My hopes for this game was real and the things MC said they intended to do was music to my ears. For that was I stupid??

Now I'm upset over the outcome. I cannot say why fully because I'm one of those under the NDA who actually played the beta. My feelings and I'm sure the feelings of many others are not based on thin air. The bottom line is a fan base or audience should be treated in a professional manner. Period.  And from what you posted you never cared so why bother to post and call those upset a bunch of whiners. Yeah, whining about other peoples opinions is really getting old.

For your information, a poll was started since back in the Cities Unlimited days asking the fans if they were interested in MMO, an OVERWHELMING MAJORITY SAID NO! I would really like for you to buy this game and sign up for the subscription and then post.

[dedgren 830]

Wow, that got nasty in a hurry...

MC was doomed to fail 90% of the requests, but bless their hearts for actually taking the time to listen.

Would those hearts be so easily blessed if MC was only pretending to listen?

I really hate ... thinly veiled special interests clogging these forums.

I assume, looking at the other folks who have posted in this thread, that this was aimed at me (but then it's always all about me, isn't it?). Okay, okay... I'll admit it. I confess. Yes, yes.,. I love SC4 and think that it is a great computer game- probably the greatest one ever. Have I ever veiled (however thinly, heh!) my feelings for the game? I'll be right up front and let you know, though, that if I thought CXL was the greatest thing to come along since sliced bread and surpassed SC4 in every way, however much it would pain me to have to admit it, I would have done so.

It's precisely that- because of what could have been- that many folks feel so let down by what has happened.

NEWS FLASH: Businessman says pleasing things to sell project!

You know, that pretty accurately sums the whole thing up. Straight from the Bernie Madoff School of Model Business Practices. Well, it might be fine with you, my friend. But it's certainly not with me.

David

[jrock 2]

I would pay that for sim city 5 any day (year)

[Herdervriend 46]

The starting price of the game is not that bad. Because all Sims games are even more expensive and mainly they are skeletons to. They even cost 60 euro and after almost 2 to 5 years they still cost a minimum of 10 to 40 euro. So, yeah that is not really the problem. And we can't expect more from EA, because since BF2 they suck gigantic in game making, before to, but not as bad. But yeah, CXL is expensive because of all the game stuff. It costs money to run a site, a beta forum, a fan kit, to create a game and let it be dated and so on. So the starting price I 100% get. I don't really complain at it, besides that I find it unfair that USA pay less then me. (39.99$ is around

[JakeMD 107]

I'm going to go ahead and say this:

1. Talk about the issue, not each other.

2. Monte Cristo is a business, not your personal game development company. I understand the frustration with the recent turn of events, but come on.. Do you really expect this to change? The game has already been released in parts of the world. There is no way that Monte Cristo would consider changing the way the game is.

3. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Simple as that. If you are right about the game, it will fail, someone else will take the spot, and life will go on.

Who knows what can happen in the future. We are basing all of our opinions on a demo and a beta, which was really for testing the servers for the online portion of the game.

[crazychickensc12 84]

Amen swat-medic! People need to relax...if it fails which many games do it doesn't mean the end of the world you might just have to stick with SC4 which isn't bad at all..

[His Divine Hand 244]

Originally posted by: Attila464

You have succeded in completly ignoring the issue of price.

I also could fill hundreds of pages of what people wanted in SC5 and how this game does have most of those, but guess what? If you want to have many of those you have to pay an extra 60 dollars a year on top of the 40 dollars you already spent on the game and there is the problem, and the problem you have yet to address.

Is it possible for MC to make a game the way people want? Sure raise the price 10-20 dollars and the profit you gain from extra customers will far outweigh what they thought they could have gained via subscription.quote>

I'm confused about this issue with pricing.  I mean, I've seen cheaper MMO's, but most of those looked the part (cheap).  You see, my problem with your arguments about this game is that you seem to find the game acceptable enough to buy, but because it is an MMO with a monthly subscription fee this game is now "ruined"; like some girl tarnished to your eyes because she once snuck a kiss from bobby in third grade.  MC looked at what people wanted, figured what they could do, and then divided that by what was profitable.  So now you get an MMO citybuilder.  Heck, MC even allows there to be an offline single player mode, which is far more than most MMO's out there.  I think you need to accept that MC decided an MMO City Builder was the best design for them to do and get over it.

I would suggest checking ign, gamespot, sc4 devotion, tout simcity (French),MC's own forums even if you still doubt that this really only a small group of people.quote>

The same people posting across multiple websites a majority does not make.  You seem to forget that the VAAASSSSSTTTTTT amount of people who play video games NEVER use an internet forum for that game.

Not to mention, from Soldyne's Demo Review, www.simtropolis.com/forum/messageview.cfm:

Originally posted by: soldyne

another point I would like to bring up is that I was chatting in game last night and, unless there is a lot of sarcasm going on, the people actually playing the game seemed to like it overall, except of course for the slow trading system. I know there is a lot of negative discussion on this forum but, I guess there are a lot people out there that feel differently. of course, I too have contributed some negative discussion although I do plan to purchase game at release...sorry I am just rambling now...quote>

. . . so maybe the complainers aren't necessarily in the majority after all.  Shocking, I know, that your opinion may not be held by everyone else. . .

q]Originally posted by: Mr_Maison

@His Divine Hand....So are you one of those who call people who put trust into a company who invites them over to discuss the development of a game in an un-nurished genre a bunch of fools?quote>

[Attila464 2]

Well this argument could go on forever So I'm just betting my 5 dollars on it failing and leaving it at that. Lets agree to disagree. But i just lay of the insults eh? I never said that i thought my opinion was shared by everyone elses, nor am i stupid enough to think that. And if you believe that i actually believe that, then it isn't worth arguing with you anyway.

After playing the demo i would agree with him. But people are still unhappy about the fact that they will have to pay extra money for the planet offer, many of them didn't even know that  was the case.

And i hardly doubt enough people here speak french to post on Toutsimcity.

[Chiliwack 1]

I guess it's like anything. You can choose to pay or sit this one out. There is so much competition for our money and for a lot of us less money to toss around.

I wonder if maybe the fact that this community is so hungry for a new city builder that they are kinda preying on that fact.

As for me personally. I have a mac as my main computer and my 2 yr old $1000 Dell can't even run the demo. So I have no choice.

I hate this push towards online. I have no desire to play any game online. Esp. a city builder.

I wish somebody would just release a solid city builder. $50. Bam done. Online optional.

Give us patches as they become available.

Have an online store where people can buy custom content or wait for a service pack which would contain all patches,updates,new content and other various goodies...release one or two a year for $25 a pop.

Get back to basics. The SC4 model works.

[cirugo 1,889]

Originally posted by: Chiliwack

I hate this push towards online. I have no desire to play any game online. Esp. a city builder.

I wish somebody would just release a solid city builder. $50. Bam done. Online optional.

Give us patches as they become available.

Have an online store where people can buy custom content or wait for a service pack which would contain all patches,updates,new content and other various goodies...release one or two a year for $25 a pop.

Get back to basics. The SC4 model works.

quote>

Amen.

Although I have and do play online games...just not THIS type of game.

[pcgamer2 0]

$6 a month really isn't that bad, i can't expect them to give it to us for free online play.For one they are a small company and have limited reasources. And its not cheap keeping all these cities, if you think of it, a city, its trade, population, all and etc is more data then your WoW character.The servers are not free, they  cost money to operate.Plus they will also need some sorta GM to moderate the 2 year olds who want to fight over nothing on the chat. Really its 3 dollars, but thats in euros, for us the United States, thank Bush and Obama for our war we can't for causing us to just print out more money.

[cirugo 1,889]

Originally posted by: pcgamer2

$6 a month really isn't that bad, i can't expect them to give it to us for free online play.For one they are a small company and have limited reasources. And its not cheap keeping all these cities, if you think of it, a city, its trade, population, all and etc is more data then your WoW character.The servers are not free, they  cost money to operate.Plus they will also need some sorta GM to moderate the 2 year olds who want to fight over nothing on the chat. Really its 3 dollars, but thats in euros, for us the United States, thank Bush and Obama for our war we can't for causing us to just print out more money.quote>

But that's just it...nobody wanted an online game in the first place...particularly at the expense of features we've come to expect as standard.

[kevinj319 0]

The fact of the matter is, I already own a city builder, SC4. It already is full-featured thanks to Rush Hour and the NAM, plus thousands of other goodies I can download for free. Seeing as I already have all of this, why would I pay to buy into CXL, given how little it offers? All for the uncertainty that one day it might develop into something worthwhile? Meanwhile, I would still be paying full price for it.

The first task CXL had was to convince me to put down SC4 and pick up my wallet... something that could have been accomplished with a solid single-player game. It did not do so. The second task is to convince me to buy into the planet offer. That's already blown since it failed task number one. I'm sorry, I just can't buy into the faulty logic that I should fund MC's experiment in the hopes that the game might eventually be good. Investors do that, not gamers.

[City Planner 121]

I don't mind paying a monthly fee for a quality game, to me both Eve and WOW were/are quality affairs so I didn't mind paying for either of those subscriptions for all the years that I did pay for them. However from my "demo" experience I can say without question (to me) that CXL is unfortunately, not going to be a quality game at release anyway. It doesn't feel MMO(ish) by any stretch of the imagination. What it does feel like however is that of a game that has had many of it's key features reserved for paying consumers only, but even with those features it doesn't have enough, and can't possibly supply enough to make it worth paying out $9.00 a month (I don't trust MC enough to buy on a 3 month charter even if it does lower the price somewhat).

So, not only will there be a monthly fee associated with the "full" game but then on top of that they expect to sell Gems too. Im sorry but if that isn't gouging I really don't know what is. That would be like my paying Blizzard their $15.00 a month and then having them tell me that If I want to go into that Raid with my buddies, I'll have to buy that Raid Gem too. It wouldn't work in WOW (for me) and it won't work in CXL for me either. Perhaps it will work for others.

When I pay full price for a game, I honestly expect to get the "full" game not a game that has had items reserved for online paying subsribers only. So it's not about paying the 9.00 a month, it's about paying the 9.00 a month for a game that isn't even a quality affair in my mind. Honestly, my cities look far superior and more lively in SC4 than they have in CXL by a long long LONG shot. CXL, much like City life still suffers from having too many repeat buildings and are even more glaring when in a game that is in full 3D (in my opinion). Curved roads or Grids, no grids or curved roads, I don't care, it's really not important enough to me to have curvey bendy roads when all my buildings are going to be in the same 1" footprint and end up leaving all kinds of unusable space along my bendy roads. While I've "heard" that it's performance that requires that the buildings all have the same sized footprint, what it really screams out to me is an unpolished game, a non quality game, a game that had high ambitions only to realize that the performance issues were going to hold it back in a major way.

Just my opinion, Im sure many peoples opionions will be different. I had looked forward to the reported "hyped" version of the game but after playing the demo realized that its nowhere near it's hyped version.

I'm also still struggling to figure out why people think that having a chat box and a tacked on trading system makes this an MMO, to me there is far too little interaction to make this an MMo, even if it is supposedly a hybrid MMO for City Builders.  Really, it doesn't come close to having the interaction capabilities that most quality MMO's can and do have.  It is however undoubtedly has a multiplayer aspect to the game that has now taken priority over it's solo play, so those that buy it for solo play are pretty much left without some core features (and Im not suprised to speculate that more will be added to the multiplayer side, scrap that, I can't even call it multiplayer as all that's there in multiplayer is the chat windows and a trading system that really still needs a great deal of work to prevent griefers, I'll just leave it as

Citiez XL Online.  Period, end of my part of the discussion, it's not an mmo, it's not really multiplayer, it's simply ONline version.

For those that love it, that's great, please support MC in their endeavor, for those that don't like it, I can sympathise with you.

[Huxleyhobbes 1]

Originally posted by: pcgamer2

$6 a month really isn't that bad, i can't expect them to give it to us for free online play.For one they are a small company and have limited reasources. And its not cheap keeping all these cities, if you think of it, a city, its trade, population, all and etc is more data then your WoW character.The servers are not free, they  cost money to operate.Plus they will also need some sorta GM to moderate the 2 year olds who want to fight over nothing on the chat. Really its 3 dollars, but thats in euros, for us the United States, thank Bush and Obama for our war we can't for causing us to just print out more money.quote>

Except that as has been said over and over, paying a monthly fee for a good multiplayer game is fine. Paying a monthly fee to play the singleplayer game which you already bought is the problem.

[GenXisT 127]

This is my 2nd post here so... whatevs...

I was playing the demo and really enjoy the game. I don't however plan on paying to play. If I wanted a subscription service, I'd be playing XBox Live or something. I pay once, for the game, that's it. This is why companies like Valve excel in the PC market. Pay once, get an awesome game that gets updated over and over... FOR FREE (TF2, L4D, CSS, HL2 etc.)

So, perhaps I'll buy the game for the single player purposes, perhaps not. I'm not sure yet.

[rsd6000 8]

Originally posted by: GenXisT

This is my 2nd post here so... whatevs...

I was playing the demo and really enjoy the game. I don't however plan on paying to play. If I wanted a subscription service, I'd be playing XBox Live or something. I pay once, for the game, that's it. This is why companies like Valve excel in the PC market. Pay once, get an awesome game that gets updated over and over... FOR FREE (TF2, L4D, CSS, HL2 etc.)

So, perhaps I'll buy the game for the single player purposes, perhaps not. I'm not sure yet.quote>

yes i used steam which has free updates - only small add ons are cheap - KF whcih had £2 add on pack

[Arwen 0]

Like many others here, I've really been looking forward to CitiesXL, but now I'm very disappointed that we'll have to pay a monthly subscription just to play a less-than-dumbed-down version of the game.

When I spend $40 for a game, I expect a game that is complete ... not one where some of the content is left out (just to force people to pay more).

I understand that there are features that would only work online (such as trading with other players), but this just isn't worth the subscription costs for many of us. And in too many ways the single player game has less actual content than what SimCity4 gave us. I'm totally bummed out that MC's decision to focus so heavily on the multi-player-subscription aspect is in all likelihood going to kill this game (unless they lower their rates to something reasonable). And that means that we will have to wait for years for a true SimCity 5 (if we ever see it).

In my opinion, MC would have been much better off raising the price on the game, while including the first 6 months online subscription as free.

[Ephemeron 17]

Originally posted by: His Divine Hand

You see, my problem with your arguments about this game is that you seem to find the game acceptable enough to buy, but because it is an MMO with a monthly subscription fee this game is now "ruined"; like some girl tarnished to your eyes because she once snuck a kiss from bobby in third grade.quote>

I'm going to disagree with you here. The MMO part  does compromise the rest of the game. I speak primarily of custom content, which I explained in an earlier post. To keep a long story short, MC are not going to allow creators to mod their own buildings. MC will fully control the modding of buildings to prevent cheating in the Planet Offer. I fear this will not allow modding projects like the NAM, or anything that might affect the functional side of the game. To quote MC themselves "We have an online side of the game and we need to make sure we have a good control of the buildings that are on the online game to avoid cheating".

Originally posted by: His Divine Hand

MC looked at what people wanted, figured what they could do, and then divided that by what was profitable.  So now you get an MMO citybuilder.quote>

Let me make this clear: the community did not ask for online play in the first place. I don't know if you saw Tr0uble's unofficial surveys (results shown here), but the idea of online play was voted one of the least desired potential aspects for the game.

Originally posted by: His Divine Hand

Heck, MC even allows there to be an offline single player mode, which is far more than most MMO's out there.quote>

Heck, how thoughtful of them.

Originally posted by: His Divine Hand

I like the way Swat-Medic put it, and if you treated Monte Cristo as if it was your own personal game developer, then you set yourself up for disapointment.quote>

They could have just made a SimCity rip-off with all the extra features that we wanted, but oh wait - SimCity is protected by copyright laws. I am no fool to see that MC are developing their own game; CXL is a different beast from SC4. I have no problem with that, but they could have made that clear from the start. To quote MC again: "We’re going for the Sim City 4 spot."

In hindsight it would have been much better if they had approached Simtropolis with a premise of "We're creating a city-building MMO, wanna help us?" Some people would have turned the idea down immediately, but there would have been less disappointment later on. And if that happened, MC would probably guarantee more support in the long run.

I am not radically opposed to Cities XL. I am just aware of its flaws. I'm sure many people will like it. But when they first started promoting it here, Cities Unlimited was not billed as an MMO. It was undeniably clear they were putting it towards this fanbase. I don't know why they changed the game concept. Like I said, they should have come up front with the idea. An MMO section is not something you just add in.

[CWLGAMER01 39]

hmmm....

I actually like the game and have several cities I have started and stopped and restarted to just see how the changes work.

I have enjoyed playing the beta and look forward to the actual game. The game has great features and some features that are not great. Sim City 4 ALSO has the SAME -- it has great features and some features that are not so great ---

In fact you can say this about Sim City, Sim City 2000, and Sim City 3000 all -- so i would suggest people remember that games are made to be profitable and every game does have a consumer. if everyone played the same game -- then we would only have 1 game ever! Think about this for a moment.

Your hatred for the game is someone else love for the same game. I hate Call of Duty 4 -- i have never been a fan of FPS -- but to say it's a BAD game because I don't like it -- well -- that would be plain stupid IMO.

OH and one more point -- The MMO and paying part --

Although I agree it does s*** to have to pay extra for content.  I must say this is really a smart way to accomplish what EA was never willing to do.  KEEP UPDATING THE GAME!  Now don't get me wrong -- the user created content is GREAT and I use it in my SC4 cities -- BUT I cannot help but think what a difference it may have made had EA actually taken suggestions themselves and programmed them into the game themselves........ 

I see the updates as a positive which out ways the cost associated with it..... not only do we get great user content added but also great MC Programers adding new content....... again all IMO.

[jabezscratch 159]

I don't mind paying a relatively hefty price or ongoing fee for a game if I am going to get real enjoyment and value out of it. A few years back, if EA wanted to charge me, say, $300 to play SC4 w/ everything included (i.e., original game, expansion pack, and all of the custom content/mods, etc.) and I knew that I would get as much enjoyment out of it that I have gotten out of it, I would not hesitate to pay that. Frankly, I would have paid $500 or maybe more b/c I love SC4 or at least the game that it has evolved into. $500 is a lot of money but I've blown at least $500 over the past few years buying a handful of games at $60 each and they're games that I haven't enjoyed and, in turn, played only a few times (SC Societies is definitely one of those dud games).

So, with regard to CXL, I'm prepared to pay heftier price but, naturally, I want value out of it. SC4 has become such a great game that I think we hold all other similar games (like SCS and CXL) up to SC4 as the standard of excellence. Is CXL worth the money? I don't know yet. Will I personally get as much out of it as SC4? Unlikely. But that doesn't mean that it won't be a good game and offer a satisfying city-building experience. i don't think that the demo can answer these questions. I'm going to have to wait until the full release. Do I buy it? Probably. I see enough to lure me in. If it sucks like SCS, $60 out of pocket won't bankrupt me.

[Attila464 2]

Originally posted by: CWLGAMER01

Although I agree it does s*** to have to pay extra for content.  I must say this is really a smart way to accomplish what EA was never willing to do.  KEEP UPDATING THE GAME!  Now don't get me wrong -- the user created content is GREAT and I use it in my SC4 cities -- BUT I cannot help but think what a difference it may have made had EA actually taken suggestions themselves and programmed them into the game themselves........ 

I see the updates as a positive which out ways the cost associated with it..... not only do we get great user content added but also great MC Programers adding new content....... again all IMO.

quote>

Here lies the problem last night, a friday evening at 8-1pm eastern US time, there were a max of 20 people online at one time, now thats for a global demo, most citybuilders aren't interested in an MMO, they just want to build a city, and if this reflects on how many people will be online for the actual game, then MC is in for some big trouble.

[yamaneko 2]

Originally posted by: MrGScoTT

The development of this game has been like faint hit on my radar since it was announced. I can understand why others have followed its development closely. After Societies flopped, MC seemed ready to pounce on the niche city-building market. After looking at the details of the PO, I can say with confidence that I'll be skipping Cities XL. As many have already said, having to pay full price for the game and then have a paid subscription service for delivery of game elements that should be consider standard is unfair to the consumer.quote>

This may be an act of intense ego, but I remember a project called Urbs Urbis that failed partly because August ended, partly because of a wrongheaded decision (that I confess to arguing for) to put the simulation before the graphics, partly because Cities XL stole its thunder, and partly because the specs that were developing had absolutely no relation to the programming resources at hand. 

[zwr100 2]

The monthly fee will pay for the things you think 'should be in the game.' Don't want to pay? Go play that other new city builder, or that other online city builder.... oh wait there are none.

I can do math too.  $160.99/year = $0.44 a day.  Eat one less candy bar a day, or one less soda or coffee, or maybe skip one $3 purchase a week (is it really that hard?).  If you spend nothing, and have no costs to cut, then go to a parking lot or couch and pick up some spare change.

Most MMOs are online or nothing.  Look at it as an MMO and be glad it has an offline version at all.

They made a bold move by making an online builder, it was neccessary in my opinion.  The best thing about SC4 is the online community that keeps fresh new content.  The worst thing about SC4 is all the custom content/mods/whatever completely bend and break the rules so there basically is no game - it's more like painting a picture than playing a game.  If they made it totally moddable like SC4 it would be the same exact game.

[N106 10]

I believe the problem with CXL is the fact that SC4 doesn't have an online cost and does have a much larger online community at the moment. A "wait-and-see" policy makes sense. CXL may realize that Simtropolis is losing support.

I'm probably not going to buy the game because of pricing. Monte Cristo really needs to think about fixing the price problem.

And, I'm not giving up my soda and candy for a video game! I'm happy with the unhealthy habits I already have!

[morriswalters 16]

I don't know that modding has been prohibited by MC. Their post have primarily talked about their online assets.  I would suspect that modding might be allowed as it could be a nice addition to the game.  I would suspect that what they would do is to protect the value of their online assets which is their stated priority.  Think of it this way. Buildings and new interchanges or any 3D models that might enhance the look of the game might be allowed since after vetting MC could allow them to be used in the online side. This is a net neutral at worst.  Gameplay mods might be allowed, again if MC doesn't feel that their online assets are threatened.  I would guess that mass transit or multplay mods would be prohibited as these would be a direct threat to their online assets. This is pure speculation on my part,  I have no direct insider knowledge.

Enough fun.  Think for yourself , I do.

This is my very humble opinion and not to be confused with truth or the  facts.